House Impeachment Hearings

[HisArpy]

What did I mischaracterize, and what do my beliefs - which you know nothing about - have to do with anything?

I simply pointed out Trump’s campaign promises, that he made. Maybe you should’ve explained to him the limited power of the Presidency. Then perhaps he would not look such a fool and liar.

I had not thought for one hot minute that he’d keep most of them, but then I not among the deplorable partisan base that he, his blustery rhetoric, and his empty campaign promises appeal to.

Why do accept and defend his lies?

It's true, I know noting about your true beliefs. Instead, what I know is a compilation of all the drek you've spouted here about how Trump is bad bad bad. Yet despite all the resistance from within and without, he seems to be doing his level best to run the administration effectively.

Given that, why do you continue to vilify someone who is demonstrably a better President in that aspect than Obama, Bush, AND Clinton combined?

 

[Emerson40]

*Yawn*

Draining the Swamp, ongoing

Reducing regulatory burden on business

Building the wall, the new wall is being built

Turning the economy around, Dow 28000

Rebuilding the military

defeating Isis

Tax cuts

Making Nato pay more of their costs

Exiting the Paris Accords

Exiting the Iran deal

Moving the Embassy to Jerusalem

Taking no salary

4 outta those 12 ain’t bad.


More than any modern prez, according to your fellow Trump apologist and partisan dimwit, derpy.

 

[Emerson40]

It's true, I know noting about your true beliefs. Instead, what I know is a compilation of all the drek you've spouted here about how Trump is bad bad bad. Yet despite all the resistance from within and without, he seems to be doing his level best to run the administration effectively.

Given that, why do you continue to vilify someone who is demonstrably a better President in that aspect than Obama, Bush, AND Clinton combined?

What you call drek others call facts. I’ve certainly been critical of Trump’s actions and words, even his tweets. He’s the President, and is doing a shite job of it. You turning a blind eye to all of it does not make him more presidential or you right. It makes you a partisan lackey.

Demonstrably better? You clearly have an opinion that differs from the majority of Americans (according to polls, his actions (inactions), the mid-terms, etc), and I suspect your standards for a President are considerably lower than most, at least when it comes to a Republican one.

 

[Dribble]

There is no place like home...no place like home...no place like home...trump rules...trump rules...

 

[Adre]

Query; is it a list of accomplishments or not?

If so, then who prepared it is irrelevant.

I’m not Query, that’s Conager. And yes, he’s irrelevant.

 

[jaF0]

Demonstrably better? You clearly have an opinion that differs from the majority of Americans (according to polls, his actions (inactions), the mid-terms, etc), and I suspect your standards for a President are considerably lower than most, at least when it comes to a Republican one.

Interestingly, Donny tracks consistently below nearly every previous President, including Nixon, Ford and Bubba:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

He was even below Carter until towards the end.

 

[KeithD]

Interestingly, Donny tracks consistently below nearly every previous President, including Nixon, Ford and Bubba:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

He was even below Carter until towards the end.

All of the best-to-worst president listings that are compiled forever more now aren't going to have a bit of trouble on who to put at the "worst" end. I don't have the slightest doubt about that. That's now a given--and I can conceive that the lists might leave a couple of blanks between him and the next-worst.

 

[Gypsytag]

https://i.redd.it/3eqbjnu5wxy31.jpg

 

[Gypsytag]

I’m not Query, that’s Prof Gav. And yes, he’s irrelevant.

lol..

 

[Rightguide]

https://i.redd.it/3eqbjnu5wxy31.jpg

None convicted of Russian collusion. Most on process crimes that happened during the investigation.

 

[Emerson40]

None convicted of Russian collusion. Most on process crimes that happened during the investigation.

Oh, so nothing to be concerned about.

It wasn’t Russian collusion, so these are still the BEST, only the BEST.

 

[Dribble]

None convicted of Russian collusion. Most on process crimes that happened during the investigation.

If you cant arrest or interview the russians...well...it is easy to say this. The truth always comes out

 

[KeithD]

If you cant arrest or interview the russians...well...it is easy to say this. The truth always comes out

Can't even get the "obviously innocent" members of Trump's campaign and "administration" to interview under oath. Despite that a goodly number of them are in prison, or convicted and on their way to prison (or pardoned, which is based on acknowledged conviction) for what they and Trump were doing.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

LOLOLOL Trump intimidating a witness in real time at the exact moment Goldman was asking Yovanovich about being intimidated by Trump's tweets. Couldn't get any better. It's like he's begging to be impeached.

 

[KeithD]

LOLOLOL Trump intimidating a witness in real time at the exact moment Goldman was asking Yovanovich about being intimidated by Trump's tweets. Couldn't get any better. It's like he's begging to be impeached.

He certainly is completely clueless. He's never before had to live in the real world.

 

[Dribble]

LOLOLOL Trump intimidating a witness in real time at the exact moment Goldman was asking Yovanovich about being intimidated by Trump's tweets. Couldn't get any better. It's like he's begging to be impeached.

Of course he is. He has come to accept he will forever be known as a failed president, and this is his one way out that keeps his followers enamored

 

[Rightguide]

LOLOLOL Trump intimidating a witness in real time at the exact moment Goldman was asking Yovanovich about being intimidated by Trump's tweets. Couldn't get any better. It's like he's begging to be impeached.

It's not impeachable, dopey.

 

[Dribble]

It's not impeachable, dopey.

It is called obstruction...you know...one of the things you impeached Bill Clinton on. Lol

 

[KeithD]

He does. But, despite what Rightguard claims, career ambassadors aren't "regularly" dismissed in this context. I'm waiting for Rightguard to cite another who has been in the last twenty years.

Ahem, Rightguard. You asserted that career ambassadors are "regularly" dismissed in the context this career ambassador was dismissed and I challenged you to cite another career ambassador who has been dismissed this context in the last twenty years.

Still looking, are you? Or are you just hoping you can duck your lying?

Back up your lying, buddy. Cite career ambassadors in, oh I'll give you thirty years this time, who rise to the "regularly dismissed" claim you have asserted.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

So far Board Trumpettes/Sheep are simply copying Devin Nunes and whining about the process, yet none of them will commit to just defending Trump's actions.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

So far Board Trumpettes/Sheep are simply copying Devin Nunes and whining about the process, yet none of them will commit to just defending Trump's actions.

Can't defend Trump on his actions.

 

[Adre]

It's not impeachable, dopey.

Let’s say you’re right. It merely shows your President is undisciplined, unhinged, and plain stupid, yet you continue to support and defend him. Which makes you pretty dumb too.

 

[Pookie]

It's not impeachable, dopey.

Sure it is. This isn't a Court of law. Congress is not limited to violations of statutes. They may also impeach a president for actions that are lawful, yet still constitute abuses of power. For example, Trump’s efforts to push witnesses to defy subpoenas is also impeachable.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Let’s say you’re right. It merely shows your President is undisciplined, unhinged, and plain stupid, yet you continue to support and defend him. Which makes you pretty dumb too.

Your opinion about your president is just that though.

Sure it is. This isn't a Court of law. Congress is not limited to violations of statutes. They may also impeach a president for actions that are lawful, yet still constitute abuses of power. For example, Trump’s efforts to push witnesses to defy subpoenas is also impeachable.

It is, if the (D)'s want to get him reelected.

Good job!!!

LOLOLOL Trump intimidating a witness in real time at the exact moment Goldman was asking Yovanovich about being intimidated by Trump's tweets. Couldn't get any better. It's like he's begging to be impeached.

Do it!!!

 

[HisArpy]

What you call drek others call facts. I’ve certainly been critical of Trump’s actions and words, even his tweets. He’s the President, and is doing a shite job of it. You turning a blind eye to all of it does not make him more presidential or you right. It makes you a partisan lackey.

Demonstrably better? You clearly have an opinion that differs from the majority of Americans (according to polls, his actions (inactions), the mid-terms, etc), and I suspect your standards for a President are considerably lower than most, at least when it comes to a Republican one.

You STARTED OUT by being critical and you nit pick everything with a jaundiced eye.

That doesn't lend your analysis any credibility, instead it makes you a fool because you refuse to assess information from a neutral position.

For instance, you dismiss the list of Trump's accomplishments because they come from his PR people. You don't dismiss them because you can refute the actual accomplishments, you dismiss them because Trump is tooting his own horn.

Yet, the media, who is the party responsible for reporting FACTS, refuses to acknowledge the actual accomplishments. Thereby leaving it up to Trump to laud himself. Which is what you use to deride someone who is actually doing what he promised.

The contortions you go through in order to validate this circular logic also illustrate the depth you will go to in order to justify your lack of neutrality and fair assessment of the facts. This further highlights how unreliable your opinion is because it isn't based on facts but animus.

Which animus is further demonstrated by your hostility towards the people who continually disprove your beliefs as total bunk by using ACTUAL FACTS rather than the drek you so causally spew everywhere.